A Commentary on the Passing Scene by
Robert Paul Wolff
rwolff@afroam.umass.edu
Wednesday, April 27, 2022
worth reading
I just found this on Daily Kos, a site I read faithfully. I have no idea whether it is correct, needless to say, but I found it fascinating. I think it is worth a look.
Interesting comments on Putin from political scientist and human rights activist Ekaterina Schulmann. I have been doing research on Alexander Dugin, who is the main philosopher behind Putin's political thinking supposedly. A very interesting video debate between Alexander Dugin and Bernard-Henri Levy in English in 2019 is available on YouTube at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x70z5QWC9qs&ab_channel=TheNexusInstitute
Dugin, basing himself on Martin Heidegger's anti-progressive reading of Western history and geopolitics, has been defending the Eurasian empire they call "the Land" in its quest for a multipolar world not ruled by America and Europe ("the Sea"). These terms are from Halford Mackinder, an English founder of geopolitics, Dugin is an "Old Believer" who is more like a fundamentalist Orthodox Christian, despising modern medicine and science or rational philosophy. In over 50 books (about 20 have been translated into English I think), Dugin has been promoting a plan to stop liberalism and democracy from causing moral and spiritual decline in Russia and its sphere of influence. Because he is also an arch-propagandist of the Russian far-right, Dugin also works in English and has a web site called "Fourth Political Theory" in which he promotes his philosophy and offers free samples to liberate the world after first enslaving them.
Putin has been rumored to travel with a special team of doctors, including a very important specialist in thyroid cancer for the elderly (dailymail.com is the source for this rumor) and has disappeared from public/cancelled work at least 4 times that have been documented (the presumption is that he was receiving secret medical treatment or in hospitals). I have now seen at least 4 videos of him moving in a jerky manner, and don't know if they are fake videos. The video clip of him in Easter mass with the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, the video with Defence minister Shoigu announcing conquest of Mariupol, the video of him shaking the hand of Belarus president Lukashenko, and others available on YouTube are very alarming.
Could an ailing or dying President of Russia try to govern his world from the grave? Is there some medical doctor who could have a duty to warn the world of his desperation? It is plausible that Putin did this to prevent the next generation of Russians from pressuring their parents to join the West and democratic culture, and it was necessary for him to believe he had to stop it and ruin their dreams of liberation.
In "The Geographical Pivot of History" (1904), Mackinder uses the term "the heartland." I don't recall his using "the Land." (This is a pedantic quibble, of course, but so be it.) The essay is fairly short and no doubt available online. I had to read it a long time ago.
A bit of an esoteric hypothesis, to be fair, and hardly worth disseminating. How about the 'realist' explanation that Putin has tried to wreck Ukraine ever since the 2008 Budapest Summit to make sure it doesn't join NATO, one way or another?
To follow up on Anonymous’s “A bit of an esoteric hypothesis, to be fair” comment, what strikes me about our present time is how “the left” and ‘the right,” or more generally—since it’s hard to say what’s “left” or “right” on an issue such as Ukraine—the pros and the cons, have come to intellectually mirror each other, clutching at explanatory straws that in their saner moments they would surely have dismissed as far fetched or at least as requiring quite a bit more supportive evidence. What have we come to?
We've become who we are, to use Nietzsche's phrase.
While nothing can justify the suffering of the Ukrainian people, for someone interested in the social psychology of political discourse, it's quite interesting and even entertaining to see much of the left (I never pay much attention to the right) with their masks off.
s.w., care to elaborate? There's a far right International and Russia is a major player. That's the current problem.
Putin may be in thrall to bounded rationality or ill or both. The solution is the same and the world may ultimately depend on the kindness of strangers.
There's nothing to elaborate. I simply observe my own reactions and those of others on the left and I come up with certain informal hypotheses about the social psychology of those whom I observe. I have no reason or desire to publish my informal hypotheses in this blog.
When all is said and done, the psychology of political actors interests me more than politics itself does. I assume that there must be others like me.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, s.w., but I’d still want to take note of the seeming fact that the intellectual failings of our present moment are so widespread, transcending any particular political camp or any particular organ of public communication. Or to put it otherwise, “our current problem”, as aaall has just put it, is so much more than a “far right international” in which “Russia is a major player.” It’s the evident tendency, as I said before, for people on all sides to clutch at explanatory straws, and, one might add, to try to corral as many as they can into their tendentious world-view and the concerns it highlights in a particular way.
This is from Alexander Dugin, Military Operation in Ukraine: Geopolitical Analysis, 4pt.su/en web site (his web site for English texts):
"Geopolitics: the Continuous War of Land and Sea Mackinder formulated the theory of the great continental war, the opposition between the civilization of the Sea (the West in general, the British Empire more narrowly) and the civilization of the Land (Heartland, Russia-Eurasia) somewhat earlier, in 1904, in his famous work "The Geographic Pivot of History". Land (Rome, Sparta) and Sea (Carthage, Athens) represent two antagonistic civilizations, opposite in everything - traditional and modern, spiritual and materialistic, military and commercial. The conflict between them is a constant in world history.
Eurasia as a theater of geopolitical confrontation In recent centuries, when the Great Game, the confrontation between the British and Russian Empires, was in full swing, the great continental war was embedded in the space of Eurasia. In this space the "Heartland," represented Russia. And the "civilization of the Sea" -- England. England tried to embrace Eurasia from outside, from the oceans. Russia fought back from the inside, trying to break the blockade.
The main strip of tension stood out in the special concept of Rimland, the "coastal zone". It stretched from Western Europe through the Middle East, Central Asia, to Southeast Asia, India and China.
The Sea's goal was to subjugate Rimland. The Land's goal was to break this influence and break through the shrinking anaconda ring. This was the reason for Russia's advance into Central Asia and the Far East.
Hence the main formula of geopolitics: "Who controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland. Who controls the Heartland, controls the world". This is the theory."
"Should Dugin be treated as a “real” philosopher? In a recent long essay in Haaretz, Dr. Armit Vazhirsky, a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argues that, despite his (to put it mildly) eccentric history, his critique of liberalism in such works as his book The Fourth Political Theory (2009), needs to be seriously engaged.
I’m not convinced.
Dugin is a gifted man and a very erudite autodidact—unquestionably smart enough to offer a convincing simulacrum of intellectual discourse. Yet detractors such as Russian political scientist Victor Shnirelman point out that he has repeatedly and opportunistically adjusted and overhauled his arguments—for instance, transferring much of his analysis of the “Eurasian” vs. “Atlanticist” clash of civilizations from earlier writings in which the opposing forces were “Aryan” (good) vs. “Semitic” (bad). The only constant is hatred of liberalism and modernity."
She argues he is more of a apocalyptic charlatan and opportunist than a philosopher.
But Dugin has also said: “we have become not merely spectators but participants in the Apocalypse.” He prays for the end of the world. Putin appears to be following his script in this war.
His understanding of the impact of sanctions is interesting in ways. That his two major archetypes of aggression are two countries who haven't invaded anyone is indeed fascinating too, especially when you consider his emphasis on diplomatic isolation. No doubt this is of major concern to our own State Department as well in light of the fact that out of 195 countries, only 30 have honored the current US sanctions on Russia.
Dugin's latest speech (April 22) to Russian public is about "Apocalyptic Realism":
https://izborsk-club.ru/22674
A sample of Dugin's text on Ukraine today by Google translate:
"Let me emphasize once again: this is not the wish of imperial dreamers, this is the harsh prose of military-political—military-apocalyptic—realism.
The cold analysis of wartime imperceptibly turns not just into a clash of civilizations, but into an apocalyptic scenario. Here, again, such factors come to the fore, which, it would seem, have long been shifted to the far periphery of society - Orthodoxy, Uniatism, schism, Catholicism and even Satanism. Not just ideologies collide with each other (by the way, what kind of ideologies clashed with each other, it is far from clear and conscious to everyone), but purely spiritual realities. And they unceremoniously invade the measured philistine life, demolish cities to the ground, ruin billionaires, destroy thousands of people, including the civilian population, awaken the atrocity (or, conversely, holiness) that has been sleeping in the depths of a person, and dramatically change the balance of power on a global scale.
The first pestilence, the second war. We have become not just witnesses, but active participants in the Apocalypse.
Not only the fate of Heartland, but also the fate of the Spirit depends on who controls Ukraine. Either this region of the world will pass under the omophorion of Christ and His Most Pure Mother, or it will remain under the rule of Satan, who will immeasurably strengthen his dominance over what, in fact, is the cradle of our Russian statehood, Church and culture, our people."
Dugin is the philosopher who created the context in which Putin could be a monster.
Dugin's April 26 blog post/speech supports Ekaterina Schulmann's speculation about Putin wanting to stomp out liberal reforms in Russia by crushing Ukraine:
https://izborsk-club.ru/22692
Here is the relevant text or sample by Dugin via Google translate:
"After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine became an instrument of both liberals in the Moscow Region and realists in the Moscow Region, and precisely an instrument of the West . Liberals in the Defense Ministry encouraged Ukraine's integration into the global world, supported its aspirations to join the European Union and NATO (the military wing of globalism). The realists in the MOD used Ukraine to their advantage against Russia. But for this it was necessary to make Ukraine a national state, which was contrary to a purely liberal agenda. This is how the synthesis between liberalism and Ukrainian Nazism was formed., against which the [special military operation] is being waged. Nazism (“Right Sector”, “Azov” and other structures banned in Russia) was needed for the speedy artificial construction of a nation, a sovereign state. Integration into the European Union required a comic-pacifist game image (Zelensky). The common denominator was NATO. This is how liberals and realists in the Moscow Region came to a Russophobic consensus in Ukraine . When necessary, they turned a blind eye to Nazism, when necessary, to liberal values and gay parades.
Now let's turn to Russia. In Russia, since the early 90s, under Yeltsin, Chubais and Gaidar, liberalism began to firmly dominate in the Moscow Region. Russia then, like Ukraine today, dreamed of getting to Europe and joining NATO. If this would require further disintegration, the liberals in the Kremlin were ready for that as well. But at some point, Yeltsin himself and his Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov slightly adjusted the agenda: Yeltsin was indignant at separatism in Chechnya, Primakov deployed a plane over the Atlantic during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. These were weak signs of realism . They remembered sovereignty and national interests. But hesitating, unsure.
True realism began with the coming to power of Putin. He saw that his predecessors weakened their sovereignty to the limit, got involved in globalization, and as a result, the country found itself under external control . Putin began to restore sovereignty."
There is more and worse nonsense than this in Dugin's patently absurd "philosophy"
"By issuing the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the 13 American colonies severed their political connections to Great Britain." https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/declaration
"Between 1778 and 1782 the French provided supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington’s forces in Virginia. French assistance was crucial in securing the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781." https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance
You might take a look at this conversation with Anatol Lieven about whether the U.S. is treating the situation in Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia and about the dangers of seeking to defeat Russia, a nuclear power, instead of sitting down to negotiate.
What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable isn't my idea of the conditions conducive to productive negotiations. All the wunderwaffe talk seems desperate to me. The time to negotiate is when Russia decides to sue for peace. Until then Ukraine gets to do Ukraine and NATO acts in NATO's interest. "Neutrality"? Let's ask Moldova how that's working out. I did find his comments on Georgia and Azerbaijan interesting. Putin may have started something rolling.
Anonymous @ 7:32, The PayPal account of that author, Alan R. MacLeod, was reportedly shut down today because he has questioned the US party line on Ukraine.
If that's true that his PayPal account was shut down for the above reason, then the situation is worse than I imagined.
I can see that there's a lot of pressure to toe the party line on this issue. Several old friends in the U.S. on the left with whom I've questioned the "Putin the new Hitler", "let's go back to the good old days around 1958 of the Russian menace" memes have indignantly and self-righteously stopped communicating with me.
For those interested in the historical issues, spec. the 1990s and the Partnership for Peace and NATO, Mary Elise Sarotte and Charles Kupchan were on 'On Point' last night -- quite a good discussion, I thought. Tonight the program is discussing the positions of Finland and Sweden vis-a-vis NATO and possible membership.
There is absolutely nothing to lose by ongoing negotiations even if they don't go anywhere. Russia is never going to "sue for peace" -- that's delusional. Even if it's defeated in some sense, the result will more likely be a withdrawal than a suing for peace. "Suing for peace" implies a whole string of unilateral concessions and promises -- I don't see Putin doing that even if he fails to achieve any of his objectives. He'll just withdraw and keep Crimea and the Donbass will remain in a contested state.
Meanwhile millions of Ukrainians will have been turned into refugees and significant parts of the country will have been leveled. I read today the Ukrainian economy is expected to contract this year by 45 percent.
Pretending this is a WW2-like scenario that can end with some form of unconditional surrender and suing for peace is not only unrealistic but, in my view, irresponsible. What it amounts to is 'the West' committing to a proxy war against Russia and fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. It's a hackneyed phrase but it's starting to become more and more applicable, istm. We shd have been pursuing a two-pronged policy: aid to Ukraine plus ongoing negotiations. So far the U.S. has only been doing the first prong.
Zelensky himself has been willing to negotiate -- if he's willing, who are you or anyone to tell him he can't negotiate until Russia "sues for peace"?
The use of the term "party line" doesn't really clarify matters that much.
There is an official Biden admin position, which seems to have wide bipartisan support in Congress. But there are other views and voices that are making themselves heard. No one afaik is silencing Mearsheimer for ex. (or those who share his views), nor of course could any 'state actor' do so w/o violating the First Am. If there is online censorship or PayPal doing things etc., that wd be unfortunate.
"There is absolutely nothing to lose by ongoing negotiations even if they don't go anywhere."
Depends. If their existence leads to a slowdown in arms shipments for reasons then that wouldn't be good. I just don't see Russia negotiating in good faith at this point. Maybe just a jobs program for diplomats?
Russia still holds too much land and Russia still has (IMO) too much attitude. With the 155s, etc. Ukraine should be able to create a situation necessarily to Ukraine's advantage. Remote probably but the Russian Army does have a history of mutinying.
My understanding of "suing for peace" is that it doesn't necessarily involve unconditional surrender but is more a way to avoid it or for the winning side to end things because enough.
"He'll just withdraw and keep Crimea and the Donbas will remain in a contested state."
Maybe, but if the Ukrainians persist ... Anyway, if the Russians in the south are pushed back into Crimea and far eastern Donbas with Mariupol relieved then OK. Given recent events maybe the Russians bailing on Transnistria should be in the mix.
Hey, I'm just a guy on the internet. I doubt Zelensky covets my counsel. I just admire his and his nation's resolve. My view of Putin is that he is going to be a problem as long as he holds power (breaths, whatever). Ukraine is carrying water for Europe and the US so we owe them. Your mileage seems to vary.
An astute perspective by Ekaterina Schulmann. A few weeks ago, I wrote a short commentary about the fact that, in my opinion, pathologizing Putin would not provide much insight. But the psychology of an aging despot who realizes at the zenith of his power that he can control everything except the hourglass of time is a very interesting aspect. Perhaps too much honor for Putin, but the motive that Schulmann believes he sees reminds me somewhat of King Lear.
Yesterday, my cat attacked me. It all began when we had run out of cat food several days ago and we fed him albacore tuna. Usually we give him two meals of wet cat food per day. Next to the wet cat food we keep a dish of dry cat food, which he generally eats when there is no wet cat food. But ever since we fed him the albacore tuna, he has “refused” to eat the dry food. He really loves the albacore tuna. When we replenished our supply of wet cat food, he continued to “refused” to eat the dry food. When the wet cat food was finished, and he began meowing for more food, I let him continue to meow, so that he would resume eating the dry cat food. Yesterday, when I refused to replenish the wet cat food, he looked at me and attacked. It certainly looked to me that he made a decision to attack me. He came at me, sinking the claws of both his paws into my left leg, as well as his teeth. It hurt.
Now, I have never thought of my cat, or animals in general, as having “free will.” According to Robert Sapolsky, my cat does not have free will. He acted on instinct. But it certainly looked like he made a “decision” to attack me. And according to Prof. Sapolsky, my decision not to give him wet food until he ate his dry food was not an act of free will, either. According to Prof. Sapolsky, I do not have free will, any more than my cat does. None of us have.
In the video attached to the article below, Anderson Cooper interviews the local prosecutor of Buccha who is documenting the killing of numerous Buccha civilians, killed randomly by Russian soldiers and left in the street to rot. The prosecutor is documenting the deaths in order to have evidence of war crimes to be used in the future when he hopes there will be war crime trials, to punish Putin and his thugs who have committed these war crimes. According to Prof. Buccha, the soldiers who killed the civilians did not to doso acting with free will. They have no free will, no more than my cat. But I imagine that just before each of the Russian soldiers had thoughts and made decisions to pull the triggers of their weapons, which they deliberately aimed at the civilians whom they killed. According to Prof. Sapolsky, they did not act with free will, because their neurons, synapses, and bio-chemical interactions, over which they had no control, determined what they did. According to Prof. Sapolsky, charging these Russian soldiers, in the unlikely event that they could eventually be identified, with war crimes, makes no sense, since they did not act with free will. It makes no more sense than putting my cat on trial for attacking me. But, as I indicated in a comment about free will in a prior post, nor does the local prosecutor, nor the tribunal of the International Court which will be called upon, sometime in the distant future, to pass judgment on whomever can be hailed into that court for accountability. And, as Billy Pilgrim says, so it goes. None of us has free will, and so we go about our business seeming to “make decisions” to kill, and to put those who kill on trial. But there is no personal responsibility, because there is no free will. I find Prof. Sapolsky’s explanation difficult to swallow, regardless its scientific underpinning. Despite what he says about neurons, synapses and bio-chemical interactions, that those Russian soldiers acted out of free will and made decisions they could have avoided making, and they should, if possible, be charged by others with war crimes by others acting with free will, and holding the killers responsible for their decisions.
Here's an interview with Greg Caruso, a philosopher who denies free will, but does not rule out jailing anti-social offenders, as a quarantine measure (to keep them out of circulation) and as deterence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMhbTWutFds
So according to Caruso, we would have good reasons to jail war criminals.
Sorry, that explanation does not fly in this context. Aside from retribution, there are generally two reasons given for prosecuting criminals, one which does not depend on free will, the other which does. The first reason is to protect society from their anti-social behavior in the future. The sconed, which does depend on the existence of free will, is as a deterrent to others.
Neither of these rationales applies to the Russian soldiers who have committed war crimes, even if they could be identified and hailed into court, because by the time this is accomplished, their war crimes will have been committed long in the past and not likely to be repeated by them. The reason to hold them responsible is to hold them personally responsible for their conduct, which presumes free will. The second, as a deterrent to others, as I said, also presumes the existence of free will.
Non-human animals were sometimes criminally prosecuted in medieval Europe (I know that's vague as to time and place - I have a citation for this, will supply it later).
While I was writing the above comment about war criminals and free will, I had some misgiving about a certain phraseology, but I was too engrossed in my writing to take the time to check whether I was correct. So, before the astute linguists who read this blog castigate me for my ignorance, I must confess there is not such thing as being “hailed” into court. The proper terminology is, “haled into court,” i.e., hauled into court.
Since there is such a thing as the law of armed conflict (which intl lawyers call, rather confusingly, international humanitarian law) and since people are employed and paid (either by NGOs or IOs or govts) to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, and since there is a bureaucracy, including the Intl Criminal Court, that exists to try such crimes, and since some natl cts also try such crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction, it is close to certain that there will eventually be legal proceedings of some kind relating to the Russian military's actions in Ukraine.
There are professionals whose salaries and livelihoods are tied up, at least in part, with the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. The institutions that employ and pay them are not going to abolish themselves irrespective of what philosophers and neuroscientists say about free will. Because the "international community" has made a collective decision that war crimes shd be investigated and sometimes prosecuted, that will move forward whether there is a persuasive scientific and/or philosophical basis for the attribution of personal responsibility or not.
Thank you for that information. I am going to look for a prosecutor who would be willing to indict my cat for assault and battery. I am going to insist on a jury composed exclusively of dogs (even though the Supreme Court has held that it violates the 14th Amendment for prosecutors to use their peremptory juror challenges to ensure that a jury has no jurors who would be sympathetic to the accused due to affinities of race or ethnicity).
Ok, I'll bite [ouch] on the question of whether your cat could conceivably be able to exercise free will, and on why there is a significant psychological difference between him/her and you, which might, within one sort of compatibiist conception, ground the free will of creatures like us.
In rejecting the dry food, once having tasted the yummy albacore tuna, your cat is acting on a set of merely "first-order" desires, that is desires that take as their objects non-motivational states of his/ her environment: a desire for tuna outweighs an aversion to the dry stuff.... so, he/she rejects the dry stuff and goes for your leg instead. This explanation appeals to the simple want-belief framework to explain the behaviour.
One kind of compatibilist account claims that the status of free and morally responsible agent requires that an agent possess a psychological structure more complicated than your cat's, namely the additional capacity to to form and act upon "higher-order" reflective desires, desires that take as their objects other, lower-order, desires.
For example, a dissatisfied addictive smoker might have a first-order desire to smoke that overwhelms her first-order desire not to smoke. But, being dissatisfied with the heath risks, she might form a second-order desire that conflicts with her first-order preferences. That is to say, she comes to have a second-order desire that her first order-preference not to smoke outweigh her first-order desire to smoke. This second-order preference might then motivate her to try to alter her first order preferences. She undertakes a process of self-transformation.
Now, cats cannot do this, because they lack the of capacity for high-order motivational reflectiveness. Some compatibilists claim that this capacity is the key element for the enjoyment of free will and moral responsibility. [The classic statement of the position: Harry Frankfurt: "Free Will and the Concept of a Person."] This is in accord with the basic compatibiist strategy of trying to spell out the kinds of psychological capacities, within an explanatory framework compatible with determinism, that distinguish free and morally responsible agents from mere "wantons," Frankfurt's term for simple psychological systems like your cat. [No offence.]
Needless to say, much more would need to be said about how a "hierarchical" account of free agency such as Frankfurt's might be developed into a full-blown account of free will and moral responsibility. But this is a glimpse of how it might get off the ground.
The moral of the beginning of this story: Your cat is a wanton, simply buffeted about by his/her first-order desires, whereas you are a person, capable of reflecting upon them and undertaking to change them.
Exactly! The human cerebral cortex has evoleved to the point that humans are able to engage in “self-reflection,” something non-humans, or perhaps non-primates (allowing that the great apes may also be able to engage in self-reflection), are unable to do. So, although we may have thoughts which pop into our heads without our controlling them, once they are there, we are able to make an effort to reflect on them. When Prof. Wolff wakes from his slumber and a random thought pops into his head, he then exerts control over his subsequent thoughts by “forcing” himself to reflect on the random thought which popped into his head. It is this ability to engage in self-reflection which constitutes our free will. This does not deny the determinism which Sapolsky insist denies the existence of free will. The thought which pops into our heads are caused by our neurons, synapses and bio-chemical interactions, but then our cerebral cortex kicks in and allows us to deliberately reflect on the random thought. Our ability to force ourselves to reflect is part of the causative chain which is compatible with the existence of free will. That is why we say of someone like Will Smith that he lacked impulse control, because he did not stop to reflect on what his reaction should be to Chris Rock’s joke. But we often do restrain our impulse control by first engaging in reflection. This effort, thought part of the chain of causation, is itself a participant, so to speak in the chain of causation, which accounts for free will, and which allows us to be held responsible to our actions. Those who are unable to engage in such self-reflection for congenital reasons cannot be held morally responsible for their conduct, something which American law in fact recognizes in the concept of diminished capacity.
So the Russian soldiers who committed war crimes can legitimately be held personally responsible for their actions as long as they had the ability to engage in reflection before they pulled the trigger of their weapons. In law that ability to reflect is referred to as mens rea. As Prof. Putnam argued, we are more than just brains in a vat.
I feel much better now.
By the way, the cat’s name is Kvothe, named by our daughter (his original owner) after the principal character in one of the fantasy books, “The Name of The Wind,” which she read as a teenager. And I have also learned my lesson – Kvothe now gets as much wet cat food as he wants, regardless how much dry cat food is still in the saucer sitting next to it.
Thank you for the second Caruso link. I started watching it and have tabbed it to return to later. As usual, I have a major brief due in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati which demands my attention, if I do not want to lose my law license. But I will return to that video after the brief is done - which will be several days.
I feel better now too, because now I don't have to read Frankfurt's "Free Will and the Concept of a Person" -- not that I was planning to anyway.
More seriously, while humans are capable of reflection (or self-reflection), istm an open question how much such reflection influences behavior -- occasionally maybe, but I wonder how often. While "wantons" are buffeted about by "first-order" desires, some influential, or formerly influential, schools of psychological thought view humans as buffeted about by basic "drives" (Freud) which they often have to either repress or sublimate, or shaped by how the environment acts (in conjunction w their genetic endowments) to reinforce or not certain behavior (Skinner).
Another consideration is the "content" of reflection. Let's say two soldiers are ordered to commit a war crime by a superior officer. Soldier A reflects and decides not to do it. Soldier B reflects and decides to commit the crime. If the content, or the result, of soldier B's reflection is itself determined by factors outside his control -- such as the way his brain works, determined by a complex mix of genes, environment and neurons or whatever -- then there is no "rational" basis for holding B responsible criminally because his reflection produced the wrong -- i.e., the immoral -- result.
Of course in "the real world," none of this matters, because unless they can prove insanity or diminished capacity, people who commit crimes -- whether it's a petty burglary or a war crime or whatever -- are subject to prosecution, irrespective of whether there is a sound philosophical or scientific or other reasoned or rational basis for the attribution of personal responsibility.
If humans are, at a "deep" psychological level, no more responsible for any of their actions than a cat is responsible for his/her/its actions, humans would still be subject to criminal prosecution for "sociological" reasons (maintenance of social order blah blah blah), which is presumably why the people who run legal systems aren't required to be conversant with philosophical debates about free will or answer questions about how humans differ from cats in the relevant respects.
May be worth a look, Marc - Frankfurt-style cases. I haven't read the whole article, but it all deals with a point that might be dangerous (philosophically) to overlook: how we might or might not be responsible for our "choices" when it's evidently impossible for us to choose in more than one way.
On-topic, I have nothing to add to the Daily Kos piece that Prof. Wolff links, other than that it calls to mind a thought I had when Trump was elected.
I tend to sympathize - perhaps a little too much - with the thought that people who act against their own interest (and, if applicable, the interests of other people they care about), act in a way that's largely/totally explicable by epistemic deficits: intellectual error, ignorance, limits of imagination. (In addition may be the practical/emotional reluctance to correct or counteract these deficits; e.g., one dimly suspects or "knows deep down" that one is wrong, but the implications of this thought are too painful to confront. These would be less purely epistemic, though.) In short, it's the Socratic line that no one does wrong willingly.
This Socratic line is hard to swallow even under the best of circumstances - but the fact that anyone supports Trump is so baffling to me; for all I know, the explanation may have to be something as strange and counterintuitive as the Socratic/"epistemic deficit" explanation. On the other hand, when Trump was elected, I wondered if there might after all be an explanatory place for "radical evil," or for sheer "nihilism" (for lack of a better word): "I know that this is against my interest and that of everyone I love and owe something to - that's the whole point!"
The author's suggestions about Putin remind me of this.
Why did you introduce this line of discussion involving free will and your cat into the comments on this page, when a discussion on free will was already underway in the comments for Prof Wolff's post "Several Things" from 21 April?
Anyone reading the comments on this page ("worth reading" 27 April) who has not seen the discussion at the other page won't realize there is a background to this discussion. And the newish topic here derails previous discussions in the comments on this page.
Why did you make your comment above regarding the American revolution and the contribution to that revolution by the French, when this had noting to do with the subject of Putin’s mental state which was the subject of the worth reading article Prof. Wolff cited? Relevance, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.
The news story of the war crimes in Bucha and Anderson Cooper's interview of the Bucha local prosecutor appeared today on CNN and sparked my thoughts about free will and personal responsibility for war crimes. No less relevant than your out of the blue reference to the American Revolution.
Notwithstanding the necessity of my turning my attention to the brief I must write, I feel compelled to respond to your comment. What you are proposing enatials the elimination of moral responsibility, and I refuse to accept that. Every human who does not suffer from a congenital form of diminished capacity has the ability of reflection prior to acting. The Russian soldier who pulls the trigger of his weapons may not be able to reflect at the level of Prof. Wolff, or Prof. Zimmerman, or you, but he certainly has the ability to reflect at some level - he reflects on what he wants to eat, where he wants to sleep, on what he has to do next in order to comply with the orders his superiors have given him. His family uprbinging, the political environment in which he was raised, his genetic make-up, do not interfere with his ability to competently reflect on these matters. No greater reflection is required to figure out that if he pulls that trigger, aimed at the person over there who has not confronted him or threatened him, that individual is likely to be seriously injured and perhaps die. No high level of reflection is required to figure this out, and to decide not to pull the trigger, regardless his family background, the environment he was raised in, or his genetic make-up. He has the ability to reflect at a level sufficient to decide whether or not to pull the trigger, and hold him morally responsible for his decision to pull the trigger.
Not to play amateur doctor, but even a domesticated cat's scratches, if they broke the skin, shd but be ignored. The area should be washed and an antibiotic ointment (e.g. Neosporin) applied. The charge for this advice is $85.00, remittable via PayPal. If MS is short on cash at the moment, I'll take it out of his next legal fee.
You ask why I posted in the comments here a reminder about the American declaration of independence and France's aid to the colonial revolutionists in their war against Britain.
The article that Prof Wolff recommended begins, "Since Putin launched a war of aggression against Ukraine, without even bothering to justify it with anything other than a few stale lines of crude propaganda...." The author then goes on to speculate on why Putin is acting irrationally.
I would like to know whether any of the sources followed by those who agree with the view that Putin has been acting irrationally, such as the writers who publish at DailyKos, has discussed why Russia's military actions against Ukraine are completely unlike France's military actions against Britain during the American Revolution.
The American colonists declared their independence and requested help from great powers against Britain; France came to the colonists' aid. People in Donetsk and Lugansk declared their desire for autonomy and requested aid from Russia; Russia came to their aid against the regime in Kyiv. In his 24 Feb address, Putin explicitly cited those requests of the people in the Donbas in his announcement of his orders for military action in Ukraine.
If Putin's actions are totally illegal and immoral, why do Americans celebrate France's actions during the Revolution?
Unlike with your comments today on free will, there wasn't a whole other page of comments discussing this. (And if there had been, I would have linked to it or at least mentioned it.)
As to the Russian soldiers who shot innocent Ukrainian civilians, there were several cases of Chilean soldiers (conscripts) and police who refused to participate in the murder of civilians after the coup. They were shot.
So at times a soldier has the option of killing an innocent civilian or losing his own life.
MS and per LFC, if your cat actually "attacked" you, it is a potentially serious medical event. I've been bitten by a cat and an infection resulted. On the other hand cats occasionally play rough as they would with another cat but just don't seem to get the difference between cat skin and human skin. My cat likes to box every evening and occasionally a claw is accidentally unsheathed. Unless your leg was shredded and the teeth did deep puncture wounds (an angry cat could do both before you could react), I wouldn't think that much of it. Have there been other behavioral changes? Oh, and when did the bite occur? If I'm late with the wet food my cat will give me a series of soft bats (claws retracted). If you reacted improperly (cat etiquette-wise) you may have precipitated matters.
There are probably several features that distinguish the two cases.
First, there's a difference between a colonial rebellion against an imperial power, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a separatist move for autonomy in a region of a recognized sovereign state that is not an imperial power and does not have an overseas empire. Moreover, if Putin's move and motive had been limited to aiding the separatists in Donbass, then he should not have tried to take Kiev (and presumably topple the Zelensky govt), which he unsuccessfully did try to do.
Second (or third), the prevailing norms about what is legitimate behavior in intl politics have changed. The crime of aggression in intl law arguably goes back to the Covenant of the League of Nations but probably really dates from the post WW2 trials in Nuremburg and Tokyo. In 1974 the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a definition of aggression as the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the UN Charter. While not legally binding as a definition, it is indicative of how norms in this area have changed. (I'm using an old source so there have been more recent legal developments here, such as the activation of the Intl Criminal Court.) This obviously all post-dates the 18th century.
p.s. see also UN Charter Art. 2(4), which doesn't use the word "aggression" but says that member states shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
LFC, (1) Does international law actually distinguish between imperial powers and non-imperial powers on this point?
(2) Try to see this from Russia's perspective. How do you know that the Russian aim was to seize Kyiv and, presumably, to subsume all of Ukraine into Russia? Is it not a reasonable alternative analysis that the Russians could see that if they limited their military actions to the Donbas, Ukraine would never cease to pour all of their military assets into counter-attacks? A way for the Russians to prevent that would be to level Ukrainian military assets throughout the country. And appearing to threaten the political and financial heart of the country (Kyiv), would force the Ukrainians to tie up military resources in the northwest, allowing Russia to take the Donbas and the southeast, with the critical points of access to the sea. (The Russians also apparently felt they needed to secure control over Ukraine's nuclear material, which was not located in the Donbas. Putin also mentioned his concern about Ukraine's intentions wrt nuclear weapons in his 24 Feb address.)
(3) "The prevailing norms about what is legitimate behavior in intl politics have changed." I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to doubt that declaring independence without the consent of the mother state or coming to the aid of such a newly declared independent state was ever considered legal or acceptable by established powers even in the 18th century.
(4) "In 1974 the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a definition of aggression as the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state." That's fine for when Mexico invades Alabama and Alabamans are outraged, which would seem to be the situation that the General Assembly was addressing. But what about when Texas declares independence and asks Mexico for help? In other words, how does it apply in the case of newly independent states in which the larger state from which a new state has emerged refuses to accept the declaration of independence?
The point here, as far as the legal arguments go, is that whether one agrees or disagrees with the legality of Russia's actions, a perfectly rational argument could be made to explain what the Russians set out to do. It's not necessary to start speculating that Putin has Parkinson's disease, or thyroid cancer, or long-haul COVID dementia, or a Napoleon complex on steroids.
Short reply for now: Intl law today most definitely distinguishes betw (1) an effort to achieve self-determination and independence from an imperial power; and (2) an effort to secede from a sovereign state (not an empire). The first situation is a legitimate effort to throw off colonial rule (see the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Peoples under Colonial Rule (that's not the exact title actually but it's the gist); the second situation is called secession and except under extraordinary circumstances not present in this case afaik, is usu deemed illegitimate.
P.s. "Empire" as used above means a formal empire with colonies or equivalent "possessions". (While the U. S. today has some territories that qualify as possessions, like Guam or probably Puerto Rico and a few others, if it is an empire it's basically an *informal* one.) There was an interesting discussion quite a while back about this at the U S. intellectual History Blog but I can't link it rt now.
I took a break from my legal brief writing to participate in a Zoom poetry slam which I visit every Friday evening. Each participant reads a poem of their choice. The poem was read by one of the participants, translated from the Portuguese. It struck a chord with me, and I thought it would strike chord with many of you as well.
The Valuable Time of Maturity- A Poem by Mario de Andrade
" I counted my years and discovered that I have less time to live going forward than I have lived until now.
I have more past than future. I feel like the boy who received a bowl of candies. The first ones, he ate ungracious, but when he realized there were only a few left, he began to taste them deeply.
I do not have time to deal with mediocrity. I do not want to be in meetings where parade inflamed egos.
I am bothered by the envious, who seek to discredit the most able, to usurp their places, coveting their seats, talent, achievements, and luck.
I do not have time for endless conversations, useless to discuss about the lives of others who are not part of mine.
I do not have time to manage sensitivities of people who despite their chronological age, are immature.
I cannot stand the result that generates from those struggling for power.
People do not discuss content, only the labels. My time has become scarce to discuss labels, I want the essence, my soul is in a hurry… Not many candies in the bowl…
I want to live close to human people, very human, who laugh of their own stumbles, and away from those turned smug and overconfident with their triumphs, away from those filled with self-importance, Who does not run away from their responsibilities .. Who defends human dignity. And who only want to walk on the side of truth and honesty. The essential is what makes life worthwhile.
I want to surround myself with people, who knows how to touch the hearts of people …. People to whom the hard knocks of life, taught them to grow with softness in their soul.
Yes …. I am in a hurry … to live with intensity, that only maturity can bring. I intend not to waste any part of the goodies I have left … I'm sure they will be more exquisite, that most of which so far I've eaten.
My goal is to arrive to the end satisfied and in peace with my loved ones and my conscience. I hope that your goal is the same, because either way you will get there too .. "
Wow, it certainly is a strange world we are living in. I just played a chess player from Ukraine. I was about to send him a message congratulating his country on its brave defiance of the Russians when s/he beat me to it, and sent me a message stating that when the Americans pull out of Ukraine, the dollar will be worth less than the Mexican peso. He proceeded to unleash a series of anti-American messages, stating that American mercenaries are in Ukraine using Nazi weapons! S/he stated that American democracy is in decline, and recommended that I listen to Tucker Carlson. I concluded that she was in the Dombas and supported secession from Ukraine. I slowly proceeded to dismantle his chess pieces one by one, and just as I was about to move and checkmate, s/he resigned. You never know whom you are going to meet playing chess.
Professor Leiter is usually quite acute about politics and world affairs, but I found his counsel here quite disturbing, because — it seems to me — it opens up the possibility that we are entering a new age of what might be called “Nuclear Munich,” when all a nuclear armed national bully has to do to succeed in seizing the territory of a neighbouring country is to move in militarily with conventional weapons and and then threaten to use its nuclear arsenal if the invaded country, and the rest of the world, do not accede to its territorial seizure.
If this were to become the international norm, then it is pretty obvious who would be next… almost certainly China’ seizure of Taiwan.
I wonder if others find Leiter’s counsel with respect to Ukraine as frightening as I do. Do you think that there is anything to it?
I find the whole situation frightening and I agree with Leiter's counsel. It looks like the situation described by Woody Allen.
In a 1979 essay called, “My Speech to the Graduates,” Woody Allen wrote:
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
I'm not going to comment directly on the Leiter post until I've read it, which I haven't yet.
My own view fwiw is that the U S. and Europe shd be following a two-pronged strategy -- arming Ukraine and pursuing negotiations -- and right now they're only doing the first; though whether Russia at this pt is even willing to negotiate about anything is admittedly an open question.
Leiter's fields of expertise include jurisprudence/legal philosophy and Nietzsche, and while he is an informed observer of politics and intl affairs, there's prima facie no more reason to pay attention to his views on Ukraine than there wd be to pay attention to the views of any random intellectual or professor one ran into on the street.
He is a colleague and friend of Mearsheimer's at U of Chicago, which prob influences his views, tho I don't know whether M wd endorse Leiter's recommendation on ceding the Donbass.
The people most worth listening to are prob those with some expertise on the region, though frankly I'm not sure anyone really has a good handle on the optimal policy right now. I certainly don't think that I do.
In fairness, I should make it clear that he is not pontificating from his own perch. He does quote some foreign policy specialists, e.g. the below... on both sides of the issue he has raised:
Putin does appear to have us over a barrel, so to speak. Give me what I want, or I will continue to threaten to use nuclear weapons, and if you push me too far, I will use them. Given this threat, it is highly unlikely that he will be willing to negotiate and settle for less than what he has already demanded – Ukraine agrees not to join NATO and cedes the Donbas region to Russia. The risk, of course, is that this will only whet his appetite for more, and the West will ultimately be faced with calling Putin’s bluff sometime in the future. Plus, as David points out, making such concessions will undoubtedly give China ideas about Taiwan, ideas which it is highly likely Xi Jinping is already considering.
Is there no rational solution for the U.S. and its allies which avoids the Hobson’s choice given by Woody Allen, the implied answer to which is live in despair and hopelessness, and let Putin have what he wants, and be done with it. Living in despair and hopelessness, when those who are not in Putin’s sights can continue to spend time with our families and eat relatively well.
Were this a sci-fi movie, at about this point Klaatu and Gort would pay us a visit and order us to behave and get along, or we would all be vaporized by a superior alien civilization. If this were the Middle Ages, the threatened country would play an eye for an eye and seize some part of the aggressor and kill all of its people, and threaten to take more unless the aggressor backed off. But the aggressor did not have nuclear weapons back then, and, moreover, despite the claims of imperialistic conduct by the U.S. in the past, that is not the kind of saber rattling a democracy is comfortable engaging in, and besides, what part of Russia would be a candidate for our own annexation?
But is there not a third option? Putin is playing a game of chicken with us, daring us to race him to the brink. But there does not have to be a brink. There is no cliff out there over which one of us must fall. This highway need not end in a chasm. Just keep racing and sustain the stalemate. Keep arming Ukraine to resist the Russian aggression. Don’t send U.S., or NATO troops into Ukraine, but send construction workers to rebuild what Russia has destroyed, and finance Ukraine’s reconstruction. Putin still needs what he calls an existential threat to Russia to justify his use of nuclear weapons – don’t give him one. See who can outlast whom. Russia still has to keep supplying its troops in Ukraine with fuel and food. Putin still has to continue to justify the deaths of Russian soldiers to his people. Eventually he will die; or he will be assassinated; or the Russian people will tire of the cost of the invasion. Don’t play the game of chicken using Russia’s rules. Don’t play chicken; play stalemate. It will of course be very expensive, both monetarily and in the lives of Ukrainians. Today the U.S. and its allies are spending billions of dollars per week. But given Woody Allen’s Hobson’s choice, is there really an alternative?
Is there historical precedent for the stalemate strategy I am proposing?
Yes there is – it is the strategy which North Vietnam used against the United States, which, despite its vastly superior military armaments and personnel, kept up its resistance, rebuilding at night what we had destroyed with bombs the previous day, requiring us to continue to sustain an unpopular war at home, until we tired and decided it just wasn’t worth it and withdrew. Just as the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan when it met resistance it could no longer tolerate.
Has there ever been a referendum in the Donbass region, conducted under international supervision to ensure its fairness, about whether a majority of residents want to stay in Ukraine or become part of Russia?
If not, then a possible negotiating hand would be: 1) complete cease fire, followed by 2) a period in which displaced people cd return to their homes, or those homes that are still standing, followed by 3) a referendum under intl supervision in the Donbass, w all sides agreeing to respect the result.
This at least would give a pause in the fighting, which from a humanitarian standpoint would be very desirable, even if in the end it doesn't pan out as a solution to the conflict.
The stalemate strategy Marc proposes is, as he recognizes, going to be v expensive in lives and money, and while it may turn out to be the best of a set of bad options, I think some other things shd also be tried.
P.s. Fighting in the Donbass has been going on for years, which is another reason to try something like a referendum while intl attention is focused on the region. Political leaders have to start, to use a cliche, thinking outside the box, otherwise this mess cd last for decades.
Another problem which a guest in Amy Goodman's program brought up yesterday is that there are several nuclear power plants in Ukraine and Russia has been various careless about military operations near them. A few days ago they fired several missiles which flew over the reactors at a low level and if they hit one of the reactors, the result could be worse than Chernobyl. Another reason to seek peace soon.
A possible problem with repatriation and a referendum is that around a million Ukrainians have been deported to Russia and some have been relocated to settlements on the Pacific coast. A census and repatriation won't be simple. The majority Russian speaking areas are only a part of the oblast so the area covered by the referendum would also have to be negotiated.
Note that the UN Sec. Gen. was in Russia this week and then in Ukraine. As a sign of good faith the Russians sent a couple of missiles into Kiev while the Sec. Gen. was there. This ends with negotiations of course but that seems not soon. Russia needs to understand that threatening nuclear war isn't productive. Until that happens there won't be good faith negotiations.
s.w., I checked the wind direction around Zaporizhzhia and it seemed headed towards Crimea and the Black Sea. I don't see the advantage to Russia in irradiating areas held by Russia or should the wind change, Russia itself. Also, Turkey is a NATO member and likely wouldn't appreciate that cloud.,
I don't see how we get peace as long as Russia keeps doing stupid things and then gets positive feedback for doing them.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding my health following my cat's temper tantrum attack. An hour after his battery, he approached me and repeatedly rubbed his whiskers against my leg, which I interpreted as an apology and a request for forgiveness. I forgave him. No serious harm to my leg.
Fascinating, and terrifying. Is Putin willing to take down the rest of the world in order to prevent the future he despises?
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments on Putin from political scientist and human rights activist Ekaterina Schulmann. I have been doing research on Alexander Dugin, who is the main philosopher behind Putin's political thinking supposedly. A very interesting video debate between Alexander Dugin and Bernard-Henri Levy in English in 2019 is available on YouTube at this link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x70z5QWC9qs&ab_channel=TheNexusInstitute
Dugin, basing himself on Martin Heidegger's anti-progressive reading of Western history and geopolitics, has been defending the Eurasian empire they call "the Land" in its quest for a multipolar world not ruled by America and Europe ("the Sea"). These terms are from Halford Mackinder, an English founder of geopolitics, Dugin is an "Old Believer" who is more like a fundamentalist Orthodox Christian, despising modern medicine and science or rational philosophy. In over 50 books (about 20 have been translated into English I think), Dugin has been promoting a plan to stop liberalism and democracy from causing moral and spiritual decline in Russia and its sphere of influence. Because he is also an arch-propagandist of the Russian far-right, Dugin also works in English and has a web site called "Fourth Political Theory" in which he promotes his philosophy and offers free samples to liberate the world after first enslaving them.
Putin has been rumored to travel with a special team of doctors, including a very important specialist in thyroid cancer for the elderly (dailymail.com is the source for this rumor) and has disappeared from public/cancelled work at least 4 times that have been documented (the presumption is that he was receiving secret medical treatment or in hospitals). I have now seen at least 4 videos of him moving in a jerky manner, and don't know if they are fake videos. The video clip of him in Easter mass with the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, the video with Defence minister Shoigu announcing conquest of Mariupol, the video of him shaking the hand of Belarus president Lukashenko, and others available on YouTube are very alarming.
Could an ailing or dying President of Russia try to govern his world from the grave? Is there some medical doctor who could have a duty to warn the world of his desperation? It is plausible that Putin did this to prevent the next generation of Russians from pressuring their parents to join the West and democratic culture, and it was necessary for him to believe he had to stop it and ruin their dreams of liberation.
In "The Geographical Pivot of History" (1904), Mackinder uses the term "the heartland." I don't recall his using "the Land." (This is a pedantic quibble, of course, but so be it.) The essay is fairly short and no doubt available online. I had to read it a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteA bit of an esoteric hypothesis, to be fair, and hardly worth disseminating. How about the 'realist' explanation that Putin has tried to wreck Ukraine ever since the 2008 Budapest Summit to make sure it doesn't join NATO, one way or another?
ReplyDeleteBucharest, of course.
ReplyDeleteTo follow up on Anonymous’s “A bit of an esoteric hypothesis, to be fair” comment, what strikes me about our present time is how “the left” and ‘the right,” or more generally—since it’s hard to say what’s “left” or “right” on an issue such as Ukraine—the pros and the cons, have come to intellectually mirror each other, clutching at explanatory straws that in their saner moments they would surely have dismissed as far fetched or at least as requiring quite a bit more supportive evidence. What have we come to?
ReplyDeleteYet another anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhat have we come to, you ask.
We've become who we are, to use Nietzsche's phrase.
While nothing can justify the suffering of the Ukrainian people, for someone interested in the social psychology of political discourse, it's quite interesting and even entertaining to see much of the left (I never pay much attention to the right) with their masks off.
s.w., care to elaborate? There's a far right International and Russia is a major player. That's the current problem.
ReplyDeletePutin may be in thrall to bounded rationality or ill or both. The solution is the same and the world may ultimately depend on the kindness of strangers.
aaall,
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing to elaborate. I simply observe my own reactions and those of others on the left and I come up with certain informal hypotheses about the social psychology of those whom
I observe. I have no reason or desire to publish my informal hypotheses in this blog.
When all is said and done, the psychology of political actors interests me more than politics itself does. I assume that there must be others like me.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, s.w., but I’d still want to take note of the seeming fact that the intellectual failings of our present moment are so widespread, transcending any particular political camp or any particular organ of public communication. Or to put it otherwise, “our current problem”, as aaall has just put it, is so much more than a “far right international” in which “Russia is a major player.” It’s the evident tendency, as I said before, for people on all sides to clutch at explanatory straws, and, one might add, to try to corral as many as they can into their tendentious world-view and the concerns it highlights in a particular way.
ReplyDeleteBut now I must go.
This is from Alexander Dugin, Military Operation in Ukraine: Geopolitical Analysis, 4pt.su/en web site (his web site for English texts):
ReplyDelete"Geopolitics: the Continuous War of Land and Sea
Mackinder formulated the theory of the great continental war, the opposition between the civilization of the Sea (the West in general, the British Empire more narrowly) and the civilization of the Land (Heartland, Russia-Eurasia) somewhat earlier, in 1904, in his famous work "The Geographic Pivot of History". Land (Rome, Sparta) and Sea (Carthage, Athens) represent two antagonistic civilizations, opposite in everything - traditional and modern, spiritual and materialistic, military and commercial. The conflict between them is a constant in world history.
Eurasia as a theater of geopolitical confrontation
In recent centuries, when the Great Game, the confrontation between the British and Russian Empires, was in full swing, the great continental war was embedded in the space of Eurasia. In this space the "Heartland," represented Russia. And the "civilization of the Sea" -- England. England tried to embrace Eurasia from outside, from the oceans. Russia fought back from the inside, trying to break the blockade.
The main strip of tension stood out in the special concept of Rimland, the "coastal zone". It stretched from Western Europe through the Middle East, Central Asia, to Southeast Asia, India and China.
The Sea's goal was to subjugate Rimland. The Land's goal was to break this influence and break through the shrinking anaconda ring. This was the reason for Russia's advance into Central Asia and the Far East.
Hence the main formula of geopolitics: "Who controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland. Who controls the Heartland, controls the world". This is the theory."
Here is a skeptical expose of Alexander Dugin by journalist Cathy Young
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thebulwark.com/aleksandr-dugin-putin-brain-russian-prophet-bizarre/
Here is a sample by Cathy Young:
"Should Dugin be treated as a “real” philosopher? In a recent long essay in Haaretz, Dr. Armit Vazhirsky, a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argues that, despite his (to put it mildly) eccentric history, his critique of liberalism in such works as his book The Fourth Political Theory (2009), needs to be seriously engaged.
I’m not convinced.
Dugin is a gifted man and a very erudite autodidact—unquestionably smart enough to offer a convincing simulacrum of intellectual discourse. Yet detractors such as Russian political scientist Victor Shnirelman point out that he has repeatedly and opportunistically adjusted and overhauled his arguments—for instance, transferring much of his analysis of the “Eurasian” vs. “Atlanticist” clash of civilizations from earlier writings in which the opposing forces were “Aryan” (good) vs. “Semitic” (bad). The only constant is hatred of liberalism and modernity."
She argues he is more of a apocalyptic charlatan and opportunist than a philosopher.
But Dugin has also said: “we have become not merely spectators but participants in the Apocalypse.” He prays for the end of the world. Putin appears to be following his script in this war.
His understanding of the impact of sanctions is interesting in ways. That his two major archetypes of aggression are two countries who haven't invaded anyone is indeed fascinating too, especially when you consider his emphasis on diplomatic isolation. No doubt this is of major concern to our own State Department as well in light of the fact that out of 195 countries, only 30 have honored the current US sanctions on Russia.
ReplyDeletePutin following Dugin's script in Ukraine on the way to the end of the world? Things are getting sillier and sillier here.
ReplyDeleteDugin's latest speech (April 22) to Russian public is about "Apocalyptic Realism":
ReplyDeletehttps://izborsk-club.ru/22674
A sample of Dugin's text on Ukraine today by Google translate:
"Let me emphasize once again: this is not the wish of imperial dreamers, this is the harsh prose of military-political—military-apocalyptic—realism.
The cold analysis of wartime imperceptibly turns not just into a clash of civilizations, but into an apocalyptic scenario. Here, again, such factors come to the fore, which, it would seem, have long been shifted to the far periphery of society - Orthodoxy, Uniatism, schism, Catholicism and even Satanism. Not just ideologies collide with each other (by the way, what kind of ideologies clashed with each other, it is far from clear and conscious to everyone), but purely spiritual realities. And they unceremoniously invade the measured philistine life, demolish cities to the ground, ruin billionaires, destroy thousands of people, including the civilian population, awaken the atrocity (or, conversely, holiness) that has been sleeping in the depths of a person, and dramatically change the balance of power on a global scale.
The first pestilence, the second war. We have become not just witnesses, but active participants in the Apocalypse.
Not only the fate of Heartland, but also the fate of the Spirit depends on who controls Ukraine. Either this region of the world will pass under the omophorion of Christ and His Most Pure Mother, or it will remain under the rule of Satan, who will immeasurably strengthen his dominance over what, in fact, is the cradle of our Russian statehood, Church and culture, our people."
Dugin is the philosopher who created the context in which Putin could be a monster.
Dugin's April 26 blog post/speech supports Ekaterina Schulmann's speculation about Putin wanting to stomp out liberal reforms in Russia by crushing Ukraine:
ReplyDeletehttps://izborsk-club.ru/22692
Here is the relevant text or sample by Dugin via Google translate:
"After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine became an instrument of both liberals in the Moscow Region and realists in the Moscow Region, and precisely an instrument of the West . Liberals in the Defense Ministry encouraged Ukraine's integration into the global world, supported its aspirations to join the European Union and NATO (the military wing of globalism). The realists in the MOD used Ukraine to their advantage against Russia. But for this it was necessary to make Ukraine a national state, which was contrary to a purely liberal agenda. This is how the synthesis between liberalism and Ukrainian Nazism was formed., against which the [special military operation] is being waged. Nazism (“Right Sector”, “Azov” and other structures banned in Russia) was needed for the speedy artificial construction of a nation, a sovereign state. Integration into the European Union required a comic-pacifist game image (Zelensky). The common denominator was NATO. This is how liberals and realists in the Moscow Region came to a Russophobic consensus in Ukraine . When necessary, they turned a blind eye to Nazism, when necessary, to liberal values and gay parades.
Now let's turn to Russia. In Russia, since the early 90s, under Yeltsin, Chubais and Gaidar, liberalism began to firmly dominate in the Moscow Region. Russia then, like Ukraine today, dreamed of getting to Europe and joining NATO. If this would require further disintegration, the liberals in the Kremlin were ready for that as well. But at some point, Yeltsin himself and his Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov slightly adjusted the agenda: Yeltsin was indignant at separatism in Chechnya, Primakov deployed a plane over the Atlantic during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. These were weak signs of realism . They remembered sovereignty and national interests. But hesitating, unsure.
True realism began with the coming to power of Putin. He saw that his predecessors weakened their sovereignty to the limit, got involved in globalization, and as a result, the country found itself under external control . Putin began to restore sovereignty."
There is more and worse nonsense than this in Dugin's patently absurd "philosophy"
"I have no reason or desire to publish my informal hypotheses in this blog.
ReplyDeleteYour call, of course. Just sounded interesting.
T.C., you might be interested in Ivan Ilyin and Anton Kenikin.
No, please, don't offer any more fodder for yet more sophomoric nonsense.
ReplyDeleteProf Wolff,
ReplyDeleteWhat sources other than DailyKos have you been following for news and analysis on the Ukraine situation?
"By issuing the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the 13 American colonies severed their political connections to Great Britain."
ReplyDeletehttps://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/declaration
"Between 1778 and 1782 the French provided supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington’s forces in Virginia. French assistance was crucial in securing the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781."
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance
You might take a look at this conversation with Anatol Lieven about whether the U.S. is treating the situation in Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia and about the dangers of
ReplyDeleteseeking to defeat Russia, a nuclear power, instead of sitting down to negotiate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz4rpx67Yzk
Regarding what you may or may not be able to read on, e.g., youtube, see
ReplyDeletehttps://scheerpost.com/2022/04/28/online-censorship-of-ukraine-dissent-is-becoming-the-new-norm/
What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable isn't my idea of the conditions conducive to productive negotiations. All the wunderwaffe talk seems desperate to me. The time to negotiate is when Russia decides to sue for peace. Until then Ukraine gets to do Ukraine and NATO acts in NATO's interest. "Neutrality"? Let's ask Moldova how that's working out. I did find his comments on Georgia and Azerbaijan interesting. Putin may have started something rolling.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 7:32,
ReplyDeleteThe PayPal account of that author, Alan R. MacLeod, was reportedly shut down today because he has questioned the US party line on Ukraine.
If that's true that his PayPal account was shut down for the above reason, then the situation is worse than I imagined.
ReplyDeleteI can see that there's a lot of pressure to toe the party line on this issue. Several old friends in the U.S. on the left with whom I've questioned the "Putin the new Hitler", "let's go back to the good old days around 1958 of the Russian menace" memes have indignantly and self-righteously stopped communicating with me.
For those interested in the historical issues, spec. the 1990s and the Partnership for Peace and NATO, Mary Elise Sarotte and Charles Kupchan were on 'On Point' last night -- quite a good discussion, I thought. Tonight the program is discussing the positions of Finland and Sweden vis-a-vis NATO and possible membership.
ReplyDeleteaaall
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely nothing to lose by ongoing negotiations even if they don't go anywhere. Russia is never going to "sue for peace" -- that's delusional. Even if it's defeated in some sense, the result will more likely be a withdrawal than a suing for peace. "Suing for peace" implies a whole string of unilateral concessions and promises -- I don't see Putin doing that even if he fails to achieve any of his objectives. He'll just withdraw and keep Crimea and the Donbass will remain in a contested state.
Meanwhile millions of Ukrainians will have been turned into refugees and significant parts of the country will have been leveled. I read today the Ukrainian economy is expected to contract this year by 45 percent.
Pretending this is a WW2-like scenario that can end with some form of unconditional surrender and suing for peace is not only unrealistic but, in my view, irresponsible. What it amounts to is 'the West' committing to a proxy war against Russia and fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. It's a hackneyed phrase but it's starting to become more and more applicable, istm. We shd have been pursuing a two-pronged policy: aid to Ukraine plus ongoing negotiations. So far the U.S. has only been doing the first prong.
Zelensky himself has been willing to negotiate -- if he's willing, who are you or anyone to tell him he can't negotiate until Russia "sues for peace"?
The use of the term "party line" doesn't really clarify matters that much.
ReplyDeleteThere is an official Biden admin position, which seems to have wide bipartisan support in Congress. But there are other views and voices that are making themselves heard. No one afaik is silencing Mearsheimer for ex. (or those who share his views), nor of course could any 'state actor' do so w/o violating the First Am. If there is online censorship or PayPal doing things etc., that wd be unfortunate.
LFC:
ReplyDelete"There is absolutely nothing to lose by ongoing negotiations even if they don't go anywhere."
Depends. If their existence leads to a slowdown in arms shipments for reasons then that wouldn't be good. I just don't see Russia negotiating in good faith at this point. Maybe just a jobs program for diplomats?
Russia still holds too much land and Russia still has (IMO) too much attitude. With the 155s, etc. Ukraine should be able to create a situation necessarily to Ukraine's advantage. Remote probably but the Russian Army does have a history of mutinying.
My understanding of "suing for peace" is that it doesn't necessarily involve unconditional surrender but is more a way to avoid it or for the winning side to end things because enough.
"He'll just withdraw and keep Crimea and the Donbas will remain in a contested state."
Maybe, but if the Ukrainians persist ... Anyway, if the Russians in the south are pushed back into Crimea and far eastern Donbas with Mariupol relieved then OK. Given recent events maybe the Russians bailing on Transnistria should be in the mix.
Hey, I'm just a guy on the internet. I doubt Zelensky covets my counsel. I just admire his and his nation's resolve. My view of Putin is that he is going to be a problem as long as he holds power (breaths, whatever). Ukraine is carrying water for Europe and the US so we owe them. Your mileage seems to vary.
An astute perspective by Ekaterina Schulmann. A few weeks ago, I wrote a short commentary about the fact that, in my opinion, pathologizing Putin would not provide much insight. But the psychology of an aging despot who realizes at the zenith of his power that he can control everything except the hourglass of time is a very interesting aspect. Perhaps too much honor for Putin, but the motive that Schulmann believes he sees reminds me somewhat of King Lear.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, my cat attacked me. It all began when we had run out of cat food several days ago and we fed him albacore tuna. Usually we give him two meals of wet cat food per day. Next to the wet cat food we keep a dish of dry cat food, which he generally eats when there is no wet cat food. But ever since we fed him the albacore tuna, he has “refused” to eat the dry food. He really loves the albacore tuna. When we replenished our supply of wet cat food, he continued to “refused” to eat the dry food. When the wet cat food was finished, and he began meowing for more food, I let him continue to meow, so that he would resume eating the dry cat food. Yesterday, when I refused to replenish the wet cat food, he looked at me and attacked. It certainly looked to me that he made a decision to attack me. He came at me, sinking the claws of both his paws into my left leg, as well as his teeth. It hurt.
ReplyDeleteNow, I have never thought of my cat, or animals in general, as having “free will.” According to Robert Sapolsky, my cat does not have free will. He acted on instinct. But it certainly looked like he made a “decision” to attack me. And according to Prof. Sapolsky, my decision not to give him wet food until he ate his dry food was not an act of free will, either. According to Prof. Sapolsky, I do not have free will, any more than my cat does. None of us have.
In the video attached to the article below, Anderson Cooper interviews the local prosecutor of Buccha who is documenting the killing of numerous Buccha civilians, killed randomly by Russian soldiers and left in the street to rot. The prosecutor is documenting the deaths in order to have evidence of war crimes to be used in the future when he hopes there will be war crime trials, to punish Putin and his thugs who have committed these war crimes. According to Prof. Buccha, the soldiers who killed the civilians did not to doso acting with free will. They have no free will, no more than my cat. But I imagine that just before each of the Russian soldiers had thoughts and made decisions to pull the triggers of their weapons, which they deliberately aimed at the civilians whom they killed. According to Prof. Sapolsky, they did not act with free will, because their neurons, synapses, and bio-chemical interactions, over which they had no control, determined what they did. According to Prof. Sapolsky, charging these Russian soldiers, in the unlikely event that they could eventually be identified, with war crimes, makes no sense, since they did not act with free will. It makes no more sense than putting my cat on trial for attacking me. But, as I indicated in a comment about free will in a prior post, nor does the local prosecutor, nor the tribunal of the International Court which will be called upon, sometime in the distant future, to pass judgment on whomever can be hailed into that court for accountability. And, as Billy Pilgrim says, so it goes. None of us has free will, and so we go about our business seeming to “make decisions” to kill, and to put those who kill on trial. But there is no personal responsibility, because there is no free will. I find Prof. Sapolsky’s explanation difficult to swallow, regardless its scientific underpinning. Despite what he says about neurons, synapses and bio-chemical interactions, that those Russian soldiers acted out of free will and made decisions they could have avoided making, and they should, if possible, be charged by others with war crimes by others acting with free will, and holding the killers responsible for their decisions.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/ukraine-war-week-that-changed/index.html
Correction:
ReplyDeleteThere is no "Prof. Buccha" as far as I know. I mis-typed. Ans that was not an act of free will. It was an inadvertent mistake.
Marc,
ReplyDeleteHere's an interview with Greg Caruso, a philosopher who denies free will, but does not
rule out jailing anti-social offenders, as a quarantine measure (to keep them out of circulation) and as deterence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMhbTWutFds
So according to Caruso, we would have good reasons to jail war criminals.
s. wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteSorry, that explanation does not fly in this context. Aside from retribution, there are generally two reasons given for prosecuting criminals, one which does not depend on free will, the other which does. The first reason is to protect society from their anti-social behavior in the future. The sconed, which does depend on the existence of free will, is as a deterrent to others.
Neither of these rationales applies to the Russian soldiers who have committed war crimes, even if they could be identified and hailed into court, because by the time this is accomplished, their war crimes will have been committed long in the past and not likely to be repeated by them. The reason to hold them responsible is to hold them personally responsible for their conduct, which presumes free will. The second, as a deterrent to others, as I said, also presumes the existence of free will.
Non-human animals were sometimes criminally prosecuted in medieval Europe (I know that's vague as to time and place - I have a citation for this, will supply it later).
ReplyDeleteWhile I was writing the above comment about war criminals and free will, I had some misgiving about a certain phraseology, but I was too engrossed in my writing to take the time to check whether I was correct. So, before the astute linguists who read this blog castigate me for my ignorance, I must confess there is not such thing as being “hailed” into court. The proper terminology is, “haled into court,” i.e., hauled into court.
ReplyDeleteSince there is such a thing as the law of armed conflict (which intl lawyers call, rather confusingly, international humanitarian law) and since people are employed and paid (either by NGOs or IOs or govts) to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, and since there is a bureaucracy, including the Intl Criminal Court, that exists to try such crimes, and since some natl cts also try such crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction, it is close to certain that there will eventually be legal proceedings of some kind relating to the Russian military's actions in Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteThere are professionals whose salaries and livelihoods are tied up, at least in part, with the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. The institutions that employ and pay them are not going to abolish themselves irrespective of what philosophers and neuroscientists say about free will. Because the "international community" has made a collective decision that war crimes shd be investigated and sometimes prosecuted, that will move forward whether there is a persuasive scientific and/or philosophical basis for the attribution of personal responsibility or not.
LFC,
ReplyDeleteThank you for that information. I am going to look for a prosecutor who would be willing to indict my cat for assault and battery. I am going to insist on a jury composed exclusively of dogs (even though the Supreme Court has held that it violates the 14th Amendment for prosecutors to use their peremptory juror challenges to ensure that a jury has no jurors who would be sympathetic to the accused due to affinities of race or ethnicity).
To Marc:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your discerning cat's name?
Ok, I'll bite [ouch] on the question of whether your cat could conceivably be able to exercise free will, and on why there is a significant psychological difference between him/her and you, which might, within one sort of compatibiist conception, ground the free will of creatures like us.
In rejecting the dry food, once having tasted the yummy albacore tuna, your cat is acting on a set of merely "first-order" desires, that is desires that take as their objects non-motivational states of his/ her environment: a desire for tuna outweighs an aversion to the dry stuff.... so, he/she rejects the dry stuff and goes for your leg instead. This explanation appeals to the simple want-belief framework to explain the behaviour.
One kind of compatibilist account claims that the status of free and morally responsible agent requires that an agent possess a psychological structure more complicated than your cat's, namely the additional capacity to to form and act upon "higher-order" reflective desires, desires that take as their objects other, lower-order, desires.
For example, a dissatisfied addictive smoker might have a first-order desire to smoke that overwhelms her first-order desire not to smoke. But, being dissatisfied with the heath risks, she might form a second-order desire that conflicts with her first-order preferences. That is to say, she comes to have a second-order desire that her first order-preference not to smoke outweigh her first-order desire to smoke. This second-order preference might then motivate her to try to alter her first order preferences. She undertakes a process of self-transformation.
Now, cats cannot do this, because they lack the of capacity for high-order motivational reflectiveness. Some compatibilists claim that this capacity is the key element for the enjoyment of free will and moral responsibility. [The classic statement of the position: Harry Frankfurt: "Free Will and the Concept of a Person."] This is in accord with the basic compatibiist strategy of trying to spell out the kinds of psychological capacities, within an explanatory framework compatible with determinism, that distinguish free and morally responsible agents from mere "wantons," Frankfurt's term for simple psychological systems like your cat. [No offence.]
Needless to say, much more would need to be said about how a "hierarchical" account of free agency such as Frankfurt's might be developed into a full-blown account of free will and moral responsibility. But this is a glimpse of how it might get off the ground.
The moral of the beginning of this story: Your cat is a wanton, simply buffeted about by his/her first-order desires, whereas you are a person, capable of reflecting upon them and undertaking to change them.
David,
ReplyDeleteExactly! The human cerebral cortex has evoleved to the point that humans are able to engage in “self-reflection,” something non-humans, or perhaps non-primates (allowing that the great apes may also be able to engage in self-reflection), are unable to do. So, although we may have thoughts which pop into our heads without our controlling them, once they are there, we are able to make an effort to reflect on them. When Prof. Wolff wakes from his slumber and a random thought pops into his head, he then exerts control over his subsequent thoughts by “forcing” himself to reflect on the random thought which popped into his head. It is this ability to engage in self-reflection which constitutes our free will. This does not deny the determinism which Sapolsky insist denies the existence of free will. The thought which pops into our heads are caused by our neurons, synapses and bio-chemical interactions, but then our cerebral cortex kicks in and allows us to deliberately reflect on the random thought. Our ability to force ourselves to reflect is part of the causative chain which is compatible with the existence of free will. That is why we say of someone like Will Smith that he lacked impulse control, because he did not stop to reflect on what his reaction should be to Chris Rock’s joke. But we often do restrain our impulse control by first engaging in reflection. This effort, thought part of the chain of causation, is itself a participant, so to speak in the chain of causation, which accounts for free will, and which allows us to be held responsible to our actions. Those who are unable to engage in such self-reflection for congenital reasons cannot be held morally responsible for their conduct, something which American law in fact recognizes in the concept of diminished capacity.
So the Russian soldiers who committed war crimes can legitimately be held personally responsible for their actions as long as they had the ability to engage in reflection before they pulled the trigger of their weapons. In law that ability to reflect is referred to as mens rea. As Prof. Putnam argued, we are more than just brains in a vat.
I feel much better now.
By the way, the cat’s name is Kvothe, named by our daughter (his original owner) after the principal character in one of the fantasy books, “The Name of The Wind,” which she read as a teenager. And I have also learned my lesson – Kvothe now gets as much wet cat food as he wants, regardless how much dry cat food is still in the saucer sitting next to it.
Thanks, Marc.... Nice comment.
ReplyDeleteGreg Caruso is a bit more complex in his reflection than you give him credit for, Marc. He talks about the U.S. legal system too.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to try him, this video is better than the first I linked to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gljr39s6Cjs
s. wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the second Caruso link. I started watching it and have tabbed it to return to later. As usual, I have a major brief due in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati which demands my attention, if I do not want to lose my law license. But I will return to that video after the brief is done - which will be several days.
I feel better now too, because now I don't have to read Frankfurt's "Free Will and the Concept of a Person" -- not that I was planning to anyway.
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, while humans are capable of reflection (or self-reflection), istm an open question how much such reflection influences behavior -- occasionally maybe, but I wonder how often. While "wantons" are buffeted about by "first-order" desires, some influential, or formerly influential, schools of psychological thought view humans as buffeted about by basic "drives" (Freud) which they often have to either repress or sublimate, or shaped by how the environment acts (in conjunction w their genetic endowments) to reinforce or not certain behavior (Skinner).
Another consideration is the "content" of reflection. Let's say two soldiers are ordered to commit a war crime by a superior officer. Soldier A reflects and decides not to do it. Soldier B reflects and decides to commit the crime. If the content, or the result, of soldier B's reflection is itself determined by factors outside his control -- such as the way his brain works, determined by a complex mix of genes, environment and neurons or whatever -- then there is no "rational" basis for holding B responsible criminally because his reflection produced the wrong -- i.e., the immoral -- result.
Of course in "the real world," none of this matters, because unless they can prove insanity or diminished capacity, people who commit crimes -- whether it's a petty burglary or a war crime or whatever -- are subject to prosecution, irrespective of whether there is a sound philosophical or scientific or other reasoned or rational basis for the attribution of personal responsibility.
If humans are, at a "deep" psychological level, no more responsible for any of their actions than a cat is responsible for his/her/its actions, humans would still be subject to criminal prosecution for "sociological" reasons (maintenance of social order blah blah blah), which is presumably why the people who run legal systems aren't required to be conversant with philosophical debates about free will or answer questions about how humans differ from cats in the relevant respects.
Cute story about the cat. :)
ReplyDeleteMay be worth a look, Marc - Frankfurt-style cases. I haven't read the whole article, but it all deals with a point that might be dangerous (philosophically) to overlook: how we might or might not be responsible for our "choices" when it's evidently impossible for us to choose in more than one way.
On-topic, I have nothing to add to the Daily Kos piece that Prof. Wolff links, other than that it calls to mind a thought I had when Trump was elected.
I tend to sympathize - perhaps a little too much - with the thought that people who act against their own interest (and, if applicable, the interests of other people they care about), act in a way that's largely/totally explicable by epistemic deficits: intellectual error, ignorance, limits of imagination. (In addition may be the practical/emotional reluctance to correct or counteract these deficits; e.g., one dimly suspects or "knows deep down" that one is wrong, but the implications of this thought are too painful to confront. These would be less purely epistemic, though.) In short, it's the Socratic line that no one does wrong willingly.
This Socratic line is hard to swallow even under the best of circumstances - but the fact that anyone supports Trump is so baffling to me; for all I know, the explanation may have to be something as strange and counterintuitive as the Socratic/"epistemic deficit" explanation. On the other hand, when Trump was elected, I wondered if there might after all be an explanatory place for "radical evil," or for sheer "nihilism" (for lack of a better word): "I know that this is against my interest and that of everyone I love and owe something to - that's the whole point!"
The author's suggestions about Putin remind me of this.
Shame the cat didn’t finish the job; I’m sure they would have been given a pardon.
ReplyDeleteMarc Susselman @ 8:39am,
ReplyDeleteWhy did you introduce this line of discussion involving free will and your cat into the comments on this page, when a discussion on free will was already underway in the comments for Prof Wolff's post "Several Things" from 21 April?
Anyone reading the comments on this page ("worth reading" 27 April) who has not seen the discussion at the other page won't realize there is a background to this discussion. And the newish topic here derails previous discussions in the comments on this page.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteVery funny. Pardon by whom? T.S. Eliot?
Eric,
ReplyDeleteWhy did you make your comment above regarding the American revolution and the contribution to that revolution by the French, when this had noting to do with the subject of Putin’s mental state which was the subject of the worth reading article Prof. Wolff cited? Relevance, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.
The news story of the war crimes in Bucha and Anderson Cooper's interview of the Bucha local prosecutor appeared today on CNN and sparked my thoughts about free will and personal responsibility for war crimes. No less relevant than your out of the blue reference to the American Revolution.
LFC.
ReplyDeleteNotwithstanding the necessity of my turning my attention to the brief I must write, I feel compelled to respond to your comment. What you are proposing enatials the elimination of moral responsibility, and I refuse to accept that. Every human who does not suffer from a congenital form of diminished capacity has the ability of reflection prior to acting. The Russian soldier who pulls the trigger of his weapons may not be able to reflect at the level of Prof. Wolff, or Prof. Zimmerman, or you, but he certainly has the ability to reflect at some level - he reflects on what he wants to eat, where he wants to sleep, on what he has to do next in order to comply with the orders his superiors have given him. His family uprbinging, the political environment in which he was raised, his genetic make-up, do not interfere with his ability to competently reflect on these matters. No greater reflection is required to figure out that if he pulls that trigger, aimed at the person over there who has not confronted him or threatened him, that individual is likely to be seriously injured and perhaps die. No high level of reflection is required to figure this out, and to decide not to pull the trigger, regardless his family background, the environment he was raised in, or his genetic make-up. He has the ability to reflect at a level sufficient to decide whether or not to pull the trigger, and hold him morally responsible for his decision to pull the trigger.
Now I really have to return to my work.
Not to play amateur doctor, but even a domesticated cat's scratches, if they broke the skin, shd but be ignored. The area should be washed and an antibiotic ointment (e.g. Neosporin) applied. The charge for this advice is $85.00, remittable via PayPal. If MS is short on cash at the moment, I'll take it out of his next legal fee.
ReplyDeleteMarc Susselman,
ReplyDeleteYou ask why I posted in the comments here a reminder about the American declaration of independence and France's aid to the colonial revolutionists in their war against Britain.
The article that Prof Wolff recommended begins, "Since Putin launched a war of aggression against Ukraine, without even bothering to justify it with anything other than a few stale lines of crude propaganda...." The author then goes on to speculate on why Putin is acting irrationally.
I would like to know whether any of the sources followed by those who agree with the view that Putin has been acting irrationally, such as the writers who publish at DailyKos, has discussed why Russia's military actions against Ukraine are completely unlike France's military actions against Britain during the American Revolution.
The American colonists declared their independence and requested help from great powers against Britain; France came to the colonists' aid. People in Donetsk and Lugansk declared their desire for autonomy and requested aid from Russia; Russia came to their aid against the regime in Kyiv. In his 24 Feb address, Putin explicitly cited those requests of the people in the Donbas in his announcement of his orders for military action in Ukraine.
If Putin's actions are totally illegal and immoral, why do Americans celebrate France's actions during the Revolution?
Unlike with your comments today on free will, there wasn't a whole other page of comments discussing this. (And if there had been, I would have linked to it or at least mentioned it.)
As to the Russian soldiers who shot innocent Ukrainian civilians, there were several cases of Chilean soldiers (conscripts) and police who refused to participate in the murder of civilians after the coup. They were shot.
ReplyDeleteSo at times a soldier has the option of killing an innocent civilian or losing his own life.
No one has an obligation to be a hero in my book.
MS and per LFC, if your cat actually "attacked" you, it is a potentially serious medical event. I've been bitten by a cat and an infection resulted. On the other hand cats occasionally play rough as they would with another cat but just don't seem to get the difference between cat skin and human skin. My cat likes to box every evening and occasionally a claw is accidentally unsheathed. Unless your leg was shredded and the teeth did deep puncture wounds (an angry cat could do both before you could react), I wouldn't think that much of it. Have there been other behavioral changes? Oh, and when did the bite occur? If I'm late with the wet food my cat will give me a series of soft bats (claws retracted). If you reacted improperly (cat etiquette-wise) you may have precipitated matters.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteThere are probably several features that distinguish the two cases.
First, there's a difference between a colonial rebellion against an imperial power, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a separatist move for autonomy in a region of a recognized sovereign state that is not an imperial power and does not have an overseas empire. Moreover, if Putin's move and motive had been limited to aiding the separatists in Donbass, then he should not have tried to take Kiev (and presumably topple the Zelensky govt), which he unsuccessfully did try to do.
Second (or third), the prevailing norms about what is legitimate behavior in intl politics have changed. The crime of aggression in intl law arguably goes back to the Covenant of the League of Nations but probably really dates from the post WW2 trials in Nuremburg and Tokyo. In 1974 the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a definition of aggression as the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the UN Charter. While not legally binding as a definition, it is indicative of how norms in this area have changed. (I'm using an old source so there have been more recent legal developments here, such as the activation of the Intl Criminal Court.) This obviously all post-dates the 18th century.
p.s. see also UN Charter Art. 2(4), which doesn't use the word "aggression" but says that member states shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
ReplyDeleteEric, I believe France and England were also in a broader war at the time.
ReplyDeleteEric, May be of interest:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/russia-moving-ahead-with-pseudo-referendums-in-ukraine/
LFC,
ReplyDelete(1) Does international law actually distinguish between imperial powers and non-imperial powers on this point?
(2) Try to see this from Russia's perspective. How do you know that the Russian aim was to seize Kyiv and, presumably, to subsume all of Ukraine into Russia? Is it not a reasonable alternative analysis that the Russians could see that if they limited their military actions to the Donbas, Ukraine would never cease to pour all of their military assets into counter-attacks? A way for the Russians to prevent that would be to level Ukrainian military assets throughout the country. And appearing to threaten the political and financial heart of the country (Kyiv), would force the Ukrainians to tie up military resources in the northwest, allowing Russia to take the Donbas and the southeast, with the critical points of access to the sea. (The Russians also apparently felt they needed to secure control over Ukraine's nuclear material, which was not located in the Donbas. Putin also mentioned his concern about Ukraine's intentions wrt nuclear weapons in his 24 Feb address.)
(3) "The prevailing norms about what is legitimate behavior in intl politics have changed." I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to doubt that declaring independence without the consent of the mother state or coming to the aid of such a newly declared independent state was ever considered legal or acceptable by established powers even in the 18th century.
(4) "In 1974 the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a definition of aggression as the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state." That's fine for when Mexico invades Alabama and Alabamans are outraged, which would seem to be the situation that the General Assembly was addressing. But what about when Texas declares independence and asks Mexico for help? In other words, how does it apply in the case of newly independent states in which the larger state from which a new state has emerged refuses to accept the declaration of independence?
The point here, as far as the legal arguments go, is that whether one agrees or disagrees with the legality of Russia's actions, a perfectly rational argument could be made to explain what the Russians set out to do. It's not necessary to start speculating that Putin has Parkinson's disease, or thyroid cancer, or long-haul COVID dementia, or a Napoleon complex on steroids.
Short reply for now:
ReplyDeleteIntl law today most definitely distinguishes betw (1) an effort to achieve self-determination and independence from an imperial power; and (2) an effort to secede from a sovereign state (not an empire). The first situation is a legitimate effort to throw off colonial rule (see the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Peoples under Colonial Rule (that's not the exact title actually but it's the gist); the second situation is called secession and except under extraordinary circumstances not present in this case afaik, is usu deemed illegitimate.
P.s. "Empire" as used above means a formal empire with colonies or equivalent "possessions". (While the U. S. today has some territories that qualify as possessions, like Guam or probably Puerto Rico and a few others, if it is an empire it's basically an *informal* one.) There was an interesting discussion quite a while back about this at the U S. intellectual History Blog but I can't link it rt now.
ReplyDeleteI took a break from my legal brief writing to participate in a Zoom poetry slam which I visit every Friday evening. Each participant reads a poem of their choice. The poem was read by one of the participants, translated from the Portuguese. It struck a chord with me, and I thought it would strike chord with many of you as well.
ReplyDeleteThe Valuable Time of Maturity-
A Poem by Mario de Andrade
" I counted my years and discovered that I have
less time to live going forward than I have lived until now.
I have more past than future.
I feel like the boy who received a bowl of candies.
The first ones, he ate ungracious,
but when he realized there were only a few left,
he began to taste them deeply.
I do not have time to deal with mediocrity.
I do not want to be in meetings where parade inflamed egos.
I am bothered by the envious, who seek to discredit
the most able, to usurp their places,
coveting their seats, talent, achievements, and luck.
I do not have time for endless conversations,
useless to discuss about the lives of others
who are not part of mine.
I do not have time to manage sensitivities of people
who despite their chronological age, are immature.
I cannot stand the result that generates
from those struggling for power.
People do not discuss content, only the labels.
My time has become scarce to discuss labels,
I want the essence, my soul is in a hurry…
Not many candies in the bowl…
I want to live close to human people,
very human, who laugh of their own stumbles,
and away from those turned smug and overconfident
with their triumphs,
away from those filled with self-importance,
Who does not run away from their responsibilities ..
Who defends human dignity.
And who only want to walk on the side of truth
and honesty.
The essential is what makes
life worthwhile.
I want to surround myself with people,
who knows how to touch the hearts of people ….
People to whom the hard knocks of life,
taught them to grow with softness in their soul.
Yes …. I am in a hurry … to live with intensity,
that only maturity can bring.
I intend not to waste any part of the goodies
I have left …
I'm sure they will be more exquisite,
that most of which so far I've eaten.
My goal is to arrive to the end satisfied and in peace
with my loved ones and my conscience.
I hope that your goal is the same,
because either way you will get there too .. "
Wow, it certainly is a strange world we are living in. I just played a chess player from Ukraine. I was about to send him a message congratulating his country on its brave defiance of the Russians when s/he beat me to it, and sent me a message stating that when the Americans pull out of Ukraine, the dollar will be worth less than the Mexican peso. He proceeded to unleash a series of anti-American messages, stating that American mercenaries are in Ukraine using Nazi weapons! S/he stated that American democracy is in decline, and recommended that I listen to Tucker Carlson. I concluded that she was in the Dombas and supported secession from Ukraine. I slowly proceeded to dismantle his chess pieces one by one, and just as I was about to move and checkmate, s/he resigned. You never know whom you are going to meet playing chess.
ReplyDeleteLet me join Marc in turning this thread back to Ukraine. [I am sure that there will time for more philosophy in later threads.
ReplyDeleteA few days ago Brian Leiter published the following entry on The Leiter report:
The headline:
"It's really time for the U.S. and NATO to stop arming Ukraine, and cede the Donbas region to Russia, as they have already ceded Crimea"
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2022/04/its-really-time-for-the-us-and-nato-to-stop-arming-ukraine-and-cede-the-donbas-region-to-russia-as-t.html
Professor Leiter is usually quite acute about politics and world affairs, but I found his counsel here quite disturbing, because — it seems to me — it opens up the possibility that we are entering a new age of what might be called “Nuclear Munich,” when all a nuclear armed national bully has to do to succeed in seizing the territory of a neighbouring country is to move in militarily with conventional weapons and and then threaten to use its nuclear arsenal if the invaded country, and the rest of the world, do not accede to its territorial seizure.
If this were to become the international norm, then it is pretty obvious who would be next… almost certainly China’ seizure of Taiwan.
I wonder if others find Leiter’s counsel with respect to Ukraine as frightening as I do. Do you think that there is anything to it?
David Zimmerman,
ReplyDeleteI find the whole situation frightening and I agree with Leiter's counsel. It looks like the situation described by Woody Allen.
In a 1979 essay called, “My Speech to the Graduates,” Woody Allen wrote:
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
David Zimmerman
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to comment directly on the Leiter post until I've read it, which I haven't yet.
My own view fwiw is that the U S. and Europe shd be following a two-pronged strategy -- arming Ukraine and pursuing negotiations -- and right now they're only doing the first; though whether Russia at this pt is even willing to negotiate about anything is admittedly an open question.
Leiter's fields of expertise include jurisprudence/legal philosophy and Nietzsche, and while he is an informed observer of politics and intl affairs, there's prima facie no more reason to pay attention to his views on Ukraine than there wd be to pay attention to the views of any random intellectual or professor one ran into on the street.
He is a colleague and friend of Mearsheimer's at U of Chicago, which prob influences his views, tho I don't know whether M wd endorse Leiter's recommendation on ceding the Donbass.
The people most worth listening to are prob those with some expertise on the region, though frankly I'm not sure anyone really has a good handle on the optimal policy right now. I certainly don't think that I do.
To LFC:
ReplyDeleteI should note that Brian Leiter published a follow-up entry on the issue under the following headline
"More on Russia, Ukraine and nuclear war"
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2022/04/more-on-russia-ukraine-and-nuclear-war.html
In fairness, I should make it clear that he is not pontificating from his own perch. He does quote some foreign policy specialists, e.g. the below... on both sides of the issue he has raised:
https://thebulletin.org/2022/04/will-putin-go-nuclear-a-timeline-of-expert-comments/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2022-04-25/why-war-ukraine-wont-go-nuclear
To S Wallerstein:
ReplyDeleteYou may have a point, but I am not sure that Woody Allen is the best person to quote in making it.
David Zimmerman,
ReplyDeleteHe said it more succintly, more elegantly and with more wit than I could have.
To S. W.allerstein:
ReplyDeleteFair enough
Putin does appear to have us over a barrel, so to speak. Give me what I want, or I will continue to threaten to use nuclear weapons, and if you push me too far, I will use them. Given this threat, it is highly unlikely that he will be willing to negotiate and settle for less than what he has already demanded – Ukraine agrees not to join NATO and cedes the Donbas region to Russia. The risk, of course, is that this will only whet his appetite for more, and the West will ultimately be faced with calling Putin’s bluff sometime in the future. Plus, as David points out, making such concessions will undoubtedly give China ideas about Taiwan, ideas which it is highly likely Xi Jinping is already considering.
ReplyDeleteIs there no rational solution for the U.S. and its allies which avoids the Hobson’s choice given by Woody Allen, the implied answer to which is live in despair and hopelessness, and let Putin have what he wants, and be done with it. Living in despair and hopelessness, when those who are not in Putin’s sights can continue to spend time with our families and eat relatively well.
Were this a sci-fi movie, at about this point Klaatu and Gort would pay us a visit and order us to behave and get along, or we would all be vaporized by a superior alien civilization. If this were the Middle Ages, the threatened country would play an eye for an eye and seize some part of the aggressor and kill all of its people, and threaten to take more unless the aggressor backed off. But the aggressor did not have nuclear weapons back then, and, moreover, despite the claims of imperialistic conduct by the U.S. in the past, that is not the kind of saber rattling a democracy is comfortable engaging in, and besides, what part of Russia would be a candidate for our own annexation?
But is there not a third option? Putin is playing a game of chicken with us, daring us to race him to the brink. But there does not have to be a brink. There is no cliff out there over which one of us must fall. This highway need not end in a chasm. Just keep racing and sustain the stalemate. Keep arming Ukraine to resist the Russian aggression. Don’t send U.S., or NATO troops into Ukraine, but send construction workers to rebuild what Russia has destroyed, and finance Ukraine’s reconstruction. Putin still needs what he calls an existential threat to Russia to justify his use of nuclear weapons – don’t give him one. See who can outlast whom. Russia still has to keep supplying its troops in Ukraine with fuel and food. Putin still has to continue to justify the deaths of Russian soldiers to his people. Eventually he will die; or he will be assassinated; or the Russian people will tire of the cost of the invasion. Don’t play the game of chicken using Russia’s rules. Don’t play chicken; play stalemate. It will of course be very expensive, both monetarily and in the lives of Ukrainians. Today the U.S. and its allies are spending billions of dollars per week. But given Woody Allen’s Hobson’s choice, is there really an alternative?
Post-script:
ReplyDeleteIs there historical precedent for the stalemate strategy I am proposing?
Yes there is – it is the strategy which North Vietnam used against the United States, which, despite its vastly superior military armaments and personnel, kept up its resistance, rebuilding at night what we had destroyed with bombs the previous day, requiring us to continue to sustain an unpopular war at home, until we tired and decided it just wasn’t worth it and withdrew. Just as the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan when it met resistance it could no longer tolerate.
Another possibility:
ReplyDeleteHas there ever been a referendum in the Donbass region, conducted under international supervision to ensure its fairness, about whether a majority of residents want to stay in Ukraine or become part of Russia?
If not, then a possible negotiating hand would be: 1) complete cease fire, followed by 2) a period in which displaced people cd return to their homes, or those homes that are still standing, followed by 3) a referendum under intl supervision in the Donbass, w all sides agreeing to respect the result.
This at least would give a pause in the fighting, which from a humanitarian standpoint would be very desirable, even if in the end it doesn't pan out as a solution to the conflict.
The stalemate strategy Marc proposes is, as he recognizes, going to be v expensive in lives and money, and while it may turn out to be the best of a set of bad options, I think some other things shd also be tried.
P.s. Fighting in the Donbass has been going on for years, which is another reason to try something like a referendum while intl attention is focused on the region. Political leaders have to start, to use a cliche, thinking outside the box, otherwise this mess cd last for decades.
ReplyDeleteLFC,
ReplyDeleteI agree we should try every option which avoids nuclear was and just ceding the Donbass to Russian. In the mean time, continue the stalemate.
Another problem which a guest in Amy Goodman's program brought up yesterday is that there are several nuclear power plants in Ukraine and Russia has been various careless about military operations near them. A few days ago they fired several missiles which flew over the reactors at a low level and if they hit one of the reactors, the result could be worse than Chernobyl. Another reason to seek peace soon.
ReplyDeleteThat should read "very careless", not "various".
ReplyDeleteA possible problem with repatriation and a referendum is that around a million Ukrainians have been deported to Russia and some have been relocated to settlements on the Pacific coast. A census and repatriation won't be simple. The majority Russian speaking areas are only a part of the oblast so the area covered by the referendum would also have to be negotiated.
ReplyDeleteNote that the UN Sec. Gen. was in Russia this week and then in Ukraine. As a sign of good faith the Russians sent a couple of missiles into Kiev while the Sec. Gen. was there. This ends with negotiations of course but that seems not soon. Russia needs to understand that threatening nuclear war isn't productive. Until that happens there won't be good faith negotiations.
MS, I hope you are over your cat trauma.
s.w., I checked the wind direction around Zaporizhzhia and it seemed headed towards Crimea and the Black Sea. I don't see the advantage to Russia in irradiating areas held by Russia or should the wind change, Russia itself. Also, Turkey is a NATO member and likely wouldn't appreciate that cloud.,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how we get peace as long as Russia keeps doing stupid things and then gets positive feedback for doing them.
aaall,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your inquiry regarding my health following my cat's temper tantrum attack. An hour after his battery, he approached me and repeatedly rubbed his whiskers against my leg, which I interpreted as an apology and a request for forgiveness. I forgave him. No serious harm to my leg.